Author
Topic: what filter for my first "L" Lens (Read 17868 times)

I use and recommend the Hoya HD Clear. Nothing against B+W, I haven't tried them. But, I have tried cheaper Hoya's with dissapointing results. The HD series is their best and noticably so. It's easy to clean and, from my experience, no noticible degredation in image quality. I use this filter on my 70-200L mark II and 17-55 (in part to keep dust out).

One caveat. I have not found a protection filter that I like for my 35. Under some conditions, like shooting birthday cakes, filters add flare. It seems to be a factor of the small diameter curvature of the front element and that it is deeply recessed. Light seems more prone to reflect between the front element and the back of the filter. Of course, the deep recess and small diameter of the front element reduces the need for a protection filter. Add a rubber lens hood and I feel it's sufficently protected. If the lens takes a nasty bump, the threaded hood will help prevent denting the threads of the lens.

If conditions are safe and you are shooting lots of back lit stuff you might want to take them off, especially on wide angles as even the best filters, add more reflective layers and it's a flat bit of glass in front, although it still might not be too bad most of the time.

This is an interesting discussion. I have always shied away from buying filters (UV) since so many people say they are a waste of money since the modern lens have their own protection. I'd like to hear more about their value.

And that juicy tidbit is the only good thing to come out of selling my 10-22 when I went FF. (I plan on getting a 17-40 and have an extra B+W filter lying around for it.)

You should lose very little when selling your 10-22, used, they are about the same price as a 17-40. I am not a big fan of the 17-40 on FF, but if stopped down, its fine. Perhaps mine was just a poor copy, it happens. It wasn't bad, just did not seem to inspire me.

A good filter is generally going to cost as much as repairing the front element -- and even the best filters are still going to degrade image quality (even if imperceptibly in ideal lighting conditions).

A lens hood, on the other hand, is always going to improve image quality, plus it offers superior protection to all the most common dangers lenses face.

There are only two scenarios where a filter makes sense for protection. The first is for weather sealing for lenses that require it (and, obviously, only in adverse weather conditions). The second is where you yourself require eye protection: rodeos where the horses are kicking gravel at your face, seaside where the waves are crashing on your head, that sort of thing.

Of course, polarizing and neutral density filters are a completely different story.

And that juicy tidbit is the only good thing to come out of selling my 10-22 when I went FF. (I plan on getting a 17-40 and have an extra B+W filter lying around for it.)

You should lose very little when selling your 10-22, used, they are about the same price as a 17-40. I am not a big fan of the 17-40 on FF, but if stopped down, its fine. Perhaps mine was just a poor copy, it happens. It wasn't bad, just did not seem to inspire me.

Even the best filters are still going to degrade image quality (even if imperceptibly in ideal lighting conditions).

A lens hood, on the other hand, is always going to improve image quality, plus it offers superior protection to all the most common dangers lenses face.

There are only two scenarios where a filter makes sense for protection. The first is for weather sealing for lenses that require it (and, obviously, only in adverse weather conditions). The second is where you yourself require eye protection: rodeos where the horses are kicking gravel at your face, seaside where the waves are crashing on your head, that sort of thing.

Of course, polarizing and neutral density filters are a completely different story.

And this comment from photozone.... "I should mention that I've used the lens (another sample) during my film SLR days and at the extreme borders the results were somewhat disappointing below 20mm (full format). "

Both the photozone and lenstip reviews of this lens seem to have been done on crop sensors, which kinda sucks.

But yeah for sure could be a copy issue. The luminous-landscape version shows a pretty crappy 35mm end, perhaps my lens was "flopped" from that one given my corner was from 17mm. Think I've read more complaints about the lens on full frame than I have praises.

And as for filters for protection, I'm of the crowd that thinks it's kinda pointless. Any whack good enough to actually fubar the lens will fubar it right through a filter. And it will take a lot of years of lesser nicks to degrade the end to a point it really really matters. All the while you have stuck a flat piece of glass on the end happily ready to at least offer no help to quality. Other than a seal if you plan to use it in a hurricane or sand storm, for protection, kinda pointless. And say you nick the crap out of the end over the years, I can't see it being extremely costly to send it to canon to have that piece swapped out anyway. I use my 10-22 all the time, never ever use a lens cover cause I'll just lose them anyway. Always yanking it in and out of the car and all over. I've managed two little nicks. Little nicks vs a big(relative to the nicks) piece of flat glass. And that's not really ever even trying to be real careful. I do wish I had a filter on after shooting around some sand dunes a bit though. But that is it.